Crying Shame

Three cheers for Michael Crowley's piece in the NYT Magazine this weekend exposing the pathetic dealings and decrepit character of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay's high flight bagman.

But, how many cheers for the photograph?

On one level, the image couldn't fit the story more closely.  His game up, his reputation ruined, his dirty dealings trickling into the national spotlight in a daily drip, this poor wimp is playing the "pity card" as if he had a full deck of them. 

But what if the people who digested the article couldn't quite read the irony in the picture?  Or, what of those who saw the picture alone?  Is the confidence man's expression phony enough or overplayed enough or over-the-top enough to to actually give him away?

It's one thing to put together a verbal picture of a person who has convinced himself he's an "innocent victim."  The question, however, is how well the words stack up against the unshaven, hair-mussed, open-collared, anguish-browed, contrite-mouthed, plaintive-eyed composition Abramoff attempts to pass off at "face value." 

By the way, the article has a nice quote about Abramoff by a "conservative activist" who has apparently known him for more than twenty years.  It says: 

''He always dressed incredibly well, even when he was a kid....  He was always more stylish than Brooks Brothers. The hair was immovable, always done up. I don't think I ever saw him not in a suit.''

(image : David Burnett - May 1, 2005 in The New York Times Magazine.)

Comments

[darrelplant]

The other guy in the DeLay photo isn't Abramoff.

[atomic]

The NYT Mag photo is, IMHO, a lame and confusing editorial choice. IMHO.

First off, how was a self respecting photographer able to get this close without puking on the guy. I mean when Abramoff gave him this look, how was it the photographer wasn't just like...blorrk!

Ok, ok, comedy aside... I think this is kind of a lame photo because it tries to get me to imagine an intimacy between me and Abramoff. And that does not exist. What if this photo was taken from a few feet more back?...So he would be a little more diminutive, his entire head visible...so that Abramoff would be something that we could decide if we wanted to get close to. Here the photographer and editor have already made the decision for us. Its like they pushed me into a blind date. I want to turn around and push the photographer+editor right back!

[Marco Ross]

But the second photo isn't Abramoff. So what's the point? it's Delay and some random dude.

[jillian]

compare the photo to this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050423/480/wx10204231843

He's playing the freaking "sympathy" card in the NYT. You're not to know all the perks and money he had available to him...they portray him as a sympathetic character...while the ap photo showed him as he is...ruthless, connivying.

[The BAG]

Thanks for the comments about the identity of the "second" Abramoff. Unfortunately, Time Magazine identified the guy in the yarmulke as him. As you can tell, I had my doubts. Still, I regret if my comments are confusing. I'll do a little more checking into the picture.

[jon st]

Man, if Dems have a friggin clue (a dubious proposistion) you will see the Delay/Cuban Cigar photo in every commerical next election year. It is perfect as a symbol. Just the look on Delay's face as his cigar is lit. The obsequious look on the guy lighting the cigar. The fact that he is smoking a Cuban cigar ("the laws do not apply to me"). I mean its all there.....it should be on a poster.

[Sluggo]

Sheet! sheet! sheet! Ahma ina beeg twouble. Ah hope de don puta me in a cell with one of dem injuns ah called a moron afta ah reeped dem orf.

(Sorry about that.)
:-)

[jefrog]

As in the picture of Lynndie below, I see smugness, not contrition.

[Martin]

See, I thought this piece was perilously close to a puff piece (under the circumstances) -- and the picture tends to confirm that. All of the negative stuff was framed in terms of Abramoff's own explanations etc. The piece was damning by implication -- not damning, if you see the difference.